This suggestion might appear trite at first, but I am perfectly
serious. Once the student has learned the alphabet (upper and lower
case) and has begun to acquire a basic vocabulary they might begin
picking out the words from any continuous text MS. This suggestion
is based on the premise that the knowledge of the MSS is primary.
Most internet TC sites procede on this basic assumption. E.g. Codex
Sinaiticus offers a few simple variants within Mt.1. The inverted
word order of Christ Jesus (Not mentioned in NA27-for the sake of
brevity doubtless) or the insertion of the article 'o'
before 'dikaios on'. These examples are not easily noticed apart
from first hand acquaintance with the Ms itself and will train the
student to do his own work.

Just a thought.

With best regards,

Malcolm

Wieland Willker

Something I found instructive is this: Select some text. Let one student copy it, give the copy to his/her neighbor, let him/her copy it again and so forth. At

Message 2 of 17
, Jan 13, 2005

0 Attachment

Something I found instructive is this:
Select some text. Let one student copy it, give the copy to his/her
neighbor, let him/her copy it again and so forth. At the end collect all
copies and let a group analyze the variants.
This works only with a larger number of participants. It works better,
when they not really know what this is about (defective copy machine?).

Minuscule 424 (11th century) was corrected throughout against a very early text (Aland & Aland, Text, 130). This can be observed by the citations of 424c in

Message 3 of 17
, Jan 13, 2005

0 Attachment

Minuscule 424 (11th century) was corrected throughout against a very early
text (Aland & Aland, Text, 130). This can be observed by the citations of
424c in NA.
But I can't find any proper discussion of this, including (I wish) a full
list of the corrections, some discussion of the date/identity of the
corrector, and some discussion of the nature of this early text represented
here.
Does anyone know of such a study (there is nothing obvious in Elliott's
Bibliography except the catalogue entry by Hunger which may well have some
information on the corrector)?

Many thanks for all the useful ideas already. I appreciate the responses so far. I was really thinking about introducing text critical ideas while teaching

Message 4 of 17
, Jan 13, 2005

0 Attachment

Many thanks for all the useful ideas already. I appreciate the responses so
far. I was really thinking about introducing text critical ideas while
teaching introductory Greek language, not so much how to introduce/teach
textual criticism itself. I suppose I'm thinking about more or less covert
introduction to some of the issues within textual criticism without
necessarily labelling them as such.

Examples:
When a student has copied some Greek exercise out incorrectly (and
then got his translation wrong), I simply say: 'this is where you went
wrong, but don't worry, scribes did that all the time'
When a student translates a Greek exercise into english that
parrots a different part of the Bible, I might say: 'some scribes did that
a lot, especially if they were copying out Mark having memorised Matthew'.
I generally encourage students to read lots of Greek aloud, partly
on the grounds that readers and scribes in antiquity would generally have
read texts aloud.

The basis idea would be that later in their degree, if/when they come to
study textual criticism more formally, they will more readily recognise
some of the issues/concepts which might come at them with a more formal
label ('phonetic error', 'harmonisation', 'stupid error' [yes I recognise
that this is not a very formal label!]). This sort of thing.

Hi TC, subject was: Re: [textualcriticism] How do you introduce TC to students learning NT Greek? Kevin ... Hi Kevin, A discussion that I have found very

Message 6 of 17
, Jan 22, 2005

0 Attachment

Hi TC,

subject was: Re: [textualcriticism] How do you introduce TC to students learning NT Greek?

Kevin

>In my first year students, we cover the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5. I have them read the discussion in Raymond Brown's commentary in the appendix.

Hi Kevin,

A discussion that I have found very interesting and edifying .. in my experience so many references are bypassed and obscured, in the Comma discussion, so I will bounce a couple of questions off of you :-)

1 John 5:7-8 (KJB)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

First, I checked to see if any of the Raymond Brown material is online, and I found a reference in b-greek, which started to steer into textcrit :-) This at least gives the flavor of the Raymond Brown material.

"If we try to go back beyond the evidence of our extant MSS, it is not clear that the Comma was included in the text of I John when St. Peregrinus edited the Vulgate in Spain in the fifth century. After a stage when the Comma was written in the margin, it was brought into the Latin text in or before the time of Isidore of Seville (early seventh century)."

Brown provides the list of seven Spanish manuscripts that contain the Comma from the 7th to 9th century. There is a footnote to Brooke, Epistles p 156-58 for a listing of post 10th century manuscripts.
===================================================================

Since Brown is claiming that the Comma wasn't put into the Scripture until the 7th century,

This leads to some interesting questions, two of which I will ask here.

1) Does Raymond Brown also mention the early church writer usage of the Comma?.. including
Cyprian about 235 AD
Priscillian the non-Trinitarian Spanish,. late fourth century
Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith
late fourth century,
And a number of other references that are way before 7th century.

2) Since Raymond Brown is specifically discussing the Latin lines (the Comma appears
in both the Old Latin and Vulgate, with varying discussions about individual manuscripts,
and their significance) there is one reference of special significance.

Here is John Gill's quote...
"and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the latter part of the fourth
century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the canonical epistles, he
complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters."

Does Raymond Brown make any specific reference to this Epistle introduction ?

Steven, Brown s appendix in the Anchor Bible Commentary on the Johannine epistles is some thirteen pages long. My previous message that you found was

Message 7 of 17
, Jan 23, 2005

0 Attachment

Steven,

Brown's appendix in the Anchor Bible Commentary on the Johannine
epistles is some thirteen pages long. My previous message that you
found was responding to the specific question of what Latin manuscripts
have the comma in the margin.

Brown organizes his study in three sections: The textual evidence
before 1500, important discussion since 1500 and the origins of the
comma. I reiterate that this appendix is a well organized presentation
of the evidence with Brown's conclusions clearly delinated as such, but
well argued.

To some of your specific questions:

Steven Avery wrote:

>
> First, I checked to see if any of the Raymond Brown material is
> online, and I found a reference in b-greek, which started to steer
> into textcrit :-) This at least gives the flavor of the Raymond
> Brown material.

At least I'm not off-topic here ;-)

> ==================================================================
> Steve Puluka
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-July/025773.html re:
> Raymond Brown's commentary on the Epistles of John in the Anchor
> Bible series.
>
> In the section on the Latin Textual tradition he notes:
>
> "If we try to go back beyond the evidence of our extant MSS, it is
> not clear that the Comma was included in the text of I John when St.
> Peregrinus edited the Vulgate in Spain in the fifth century. After a
> stage when the Comma was written in the margin, it was brought into
> the Latin text in or before the time of Isidore of Seville (early
> seventh century)."
>
> Brown provides the list of seven Spanish manuscripts that contain the
> Comma from the 7th to 9th century. There is a footnote to Brooke,
> Epistles p 156-58 for a listing of post 10th century manuscripts.
> ===================================================================
>
> Since Brown is claiming that the Comma wasn't put into the Scripture
> until the 7th century,

I was answering the specific question of what Latin manuscripts show the
comma in the margin and not in the main text.

Brown is much more nuanced here. He is showing that there is no
surviving textual evidence for the comma in a scriptural manuscript
before the seventh century in Spain. His conclusion, based on other
evidence, is that the comma was actually written in the 3rd century in
either North Africa or Spain in Latin and inserted into the Latin
textual tradition in one of these places.

> This leads to some interesting questions, two of which I will ask
> here.
>
> 1) Does Raymond Brown also mention the early church writer usage of
> the Comma?.. including Cyprian about 235 AD Priscillian the
> non-Trinitarian Spanish,. late fourth century Council of Carthage
> (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith late
> fourth century, And a number of other references that are way before
> 7th century.

Yes, he discussing this evidence in section three on the origin of the
comma. These discussions are what prompts his 3rd century conclusion
for the writting of the comma.

> 2) Since Raymond Brown is specifically discussing the Latin lines
> (the Comma appears in both the Old Latin and Vulgate, with varying
> discussions about individual manuscripts, and their significance)
> there is one reference of special significance.
>
> Here is John Gill's quote... "and Jerome, as had been observed before
> it in his translation made in the latter part of the fourth century.
> In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the
> canonical epistles, he complains of the omission of it by unfaithful
> interpreters."
>
> Does Raymond Brown make any specific reference to this Epistle
> introduction ?

Brown considers this letter of Jerome's to be from 550 and pseudonymous.
But he does give this some weight in perhaps expressing Jeromes
opinion even if it is not his own words.

For Brown the major evidence that is is a late Latin addition is the
complete lack of the comma in any Greek manuscript or any translation of
scripture prior to 1500.

Again, Brown is well worth the read. He does an excellent job of
providing ALL the references to primary documents to check his work
yourself. I really appreciate that.

Schmuel wrote: Hi Kevin, A discussion that I have found very interesting and edifying .. in my experience so many references are bypassed and obscured, in the

Message 8 of 17
, Jan 23, 2005

0 Attachment

Schmuel wrote:

Hi Kevin,
A discussion that I have found very interesting and edifying .. in my
experience so many references are bypassed and obscured, in the Comma
discussion, so I will bounce a couple of questions off of you :-)
1 John 5:7-8 (KJB)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
First, I checked to see if any of the Raymond Brown material is online, and I
found a reference in b-greek, which started to steer into textcrit :-) This at
least gives the flavor of the Raymond Brown material.
==================================================================
Steve Puluka
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2003-July/025773.html
re: Raymond Brown's commentary on the Epistles of John in the Anchor Bible series.
In the section on the Latin Textual tradition he notes:
"If we try to go back beyond the evidence of our extant MSS, it is not clear
that the Comma was included in the text of I John when St. Peregrinus edited the
Vulgate in Spain in the fifth century. After a stage when the Comma was written
in the margin, it was brought into the Latin text in or before the time of
Isidore of Seville (early seventh century)."
Brown provides the list of seven Spanish manuscripts that contain the Comma from
the 7th to 9th century. There is a footnote to Brooke, Epistles p 156-58 for a
listing of post 10th century manuscripts.
===================================================================
Since Brown is claiming that the Comma wasn't put into the Scripture until the
7th century,
This leads to some interesting questions, two of which I will ask here.
1) Does Raymond Brown also mention the early church writer usage of the Comma?..
including
Cyprian about 235 AD
Priscillian the non-Trinitarian Spanish,. late fourth century
Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of
faith
late fourth century,
And a number of other references that are way before 7th century.
2) Since Raymond Brown is specifically discussing the Latin lines (the Comma
appears
in both the Old Latin and Vulgate, with varying discussions about
individual manuscripts,
and their significance) there is one reference of special significance.
Here is John Gill's quote...
"and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the
latter part of the fourth
century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the
canonical epistles, he
complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters."
Does Raymond Brown make any specific reference to this Epistle introduction ?
Thanks :-)

Hi Schmuel,

Jerome's forword to these epistles is at least since John Mill or
Richard Simon, if not earlier, rightfully
regarded as a simple and contradictory forgery (well, you hear about
all these forgeries in the net in our days,
pious forgers are not new ...). Already Erasmus had doubts when reading
it (the foreword).

>Schmuel wrote:
>>This leads to some interesting questions, two of which I will ask here.
>> 1) Does Raymond Brown also mention the early church writer usage of the Comma?.. including
>> Cyprian about 235 AD
>> Priscillian the non-Trinitarian Spanish,. late fourth century
>> Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith
>> late fourth century,
>> And a number of other references that are way before 7th century.>
>>2) Since Raymond Brown is specifically discussing the Latin lines (the Comma appears
>> in both the Old Latin and Vulgate, with varying discussions about individual manuscripts,
>> and their significance) there is one reference of special significance.
>> Here is John Gill's quote...
>> "and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the latter part of the fourth
>> century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the canonical epistles, he
>> complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters.">
>> Does Raymond Brown make any specific reference to this Epistle introduction ?>
>> Thanks :-)

Chris,

>I have a question for you. If you weren't taking a KJV only position, would you consider, on balance of probability, that the evidence for the comma is compelling enough to include it?

Schmuel
On face, this question appears -
a) irrelevant to my questions about the Raymond Brown article,
and Johanine Comma Latin evidences, which is the current thread
b) has the sense of an attempt to poison the well of dialog here
c) may be better handled on other forums where conceptual paradigms of the text,
including inspiration and preservation, are on topic, per list guidelines

Now, if the moderator intervenes and indicates that your question is on-topic and relevant,
then, and only then, would I would be more than happy to address it in fullness here :-)

... As it pertains to methodology, and how an apriori position may influence what one considers to be TC evidence and sound conclusions on matters TC, I think

Message 10 of 17
, Jan 23, 2005

0 Attachment

Schmuel wrote:

Now, if the moderator intervenes and indicates that your question
is on-topic and relevant,then, and only then, would I would be more than happy to address
it in fullness here :-)

As it pertains to methodology, and how an apriori position may influence
what one considers to be TC evidence and sound conclusions on matters TC,
I think the question is fully legitimate, relevant, and NOT off topic,
and therefore warrants a reply from you.

Yours,

Jeffrey
--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...

Wieland Willker

I have rejected several messages that led to unfruitful and/or off-topic contributions only. Of course one can defend the Comma Johanneum here, but only using

Message 11 of 17
, Jan 23, 2005

0 Attachment

I have rejected several messages that led to unfruitful and/or off-topic
contributions only.
Of course one can defend the Comma Johanneum here, but only using
scholarly arguments. Keep to the facts. Off topic or ad hominem in
private email only, please!

Evidence for the comma in the Greek tradition is zero. Not in the texts, not in the Greek fathers, not in the lectionary or liturgical traditions in ANY age,

Message 12 of 17
, Jan 24, 2005

0 Attachment

Evidence for the comma in the Greek tradition is zero. Not in the
texts, not in the Greek fathers, not in the lectionary or liturgical
traditions in ANY age, and not in any translation of Greek to ANY
language in any time OTHER than Vulgate Latin, NOT even Old Latin.

Those very few Greek manuscripts with the comma are produced after 1500
in the west and all but one contain a Vulgate text with the comma on the
facing page.

That is my short cut to refute your interpretation of latin fathers to
assert a Greek textual tradition. I'll pass on most of the detail for
time, but I do want to comment a a couple.

I reiterate that anyone seriously interested in the topic needs to see
this Latin evidence in context. The appendix in Brown's Anchor Bible
commentary does this well.

John Lupia wrote:

>
> Consequently, there is every reason to hold tenable
> and apodictically evident that the Comma Johanneum
> must have very early Greek attestation, which,
> unfortunately, is no longer extant.

This is FAR too strong a language for the "evidence" you cite. You are
making a chain of logic here. A more accurate description would be
"possible" not "must have" early Greek attestation. And I would not
even grant possible in these circumstances. There are piles of
manuscripts and Greek Fathers from this period that have zero
attestation. That is a large void to leap over.

>
> P9 (P. Oxy 402) is the oldest known copy of 1 John
> 3:11-12, 14-17. I propose that if the Comma is genuine
> and if the epistles of John became more copiously
> produced over time post third century then Jerome's
> comment accounts for the silence and its becoming
> suppressed by omission during a period when the
> Trinity became controversial and divisive. The
> century of controversies leading up to Nicea could
> well have caused the Comma to be regarded as a
> disputed passage with the bias causing it to be
> omitted and suppressed. This could explain why St.
> Athanasius, ordained to the deaconate in AD 319 was
> not familiar with it then or for the next 54 years, or
> that he did know it very early on as a disputed text
> and so did not rely on it at Nicea. Keep in mind that
> the Comma appears to have a continuity from the second
> century throughout time. The historical problem
> concerns itself with the Comma's disappearance in
> Greek texts, but this has rational explanations that
> account for it.

But this text would have been immensely HELPFUL to Athanasius and the
Orthodox defenders of Nicea. Why should it be surpressed? The
controversy had divided the Christian East. There is no way that those
opposed to Nicea could have hidden this existing text from the Orthodox.
This very controversy is why I believe the comma CANNOT be Greek in
origin. If the comma were in any Greek texts of this period we would
have heard evidence in the Greek Fathers.

>
> In light of the pre-fourth century attestations it is
> apodictically evident that Jerome's Latin Vulgate,
> which contains the Comma Johanneum, was translated
> from an original untampered Greek text he had in his
> possession regarding it as genuine and was
> corroborated by Old Itala editions. This can be
> ascertained by simply reading Jerome in his Prologue
> to the Canonical Epistles.

As I and at least two other messages have pointed out, the scholarly
concensus is that Jerome's introduction to the Johannine epistles is a
sixth century psuedonomous work. You need to present the evidence to
challange that designation before you can cite this letter as early
evidence. Without making such an argument you are citing a sixth
century evidence that fails to make the point you claim.

You also need to deal with the fact that the Old Latin does not contain
the comma. This tradition is earlier than Jerome in the west.

... I have a question for you. If you weren t taking a KJV only position, would you consider, on balance of probability, that the evidence for the comma is

Message 13 of 17
, Jan 29, 2005

0 Attachment

Schmuel wrote:

>
>This leads to some interesting questions, two of which I will ask here.
>
>1) Does Raymond Brown also mention the early church writer usage of the Comma?.. including
> Cyprian about 235 AD
> Priscillian the non-Trinitarian Spanish,. late fourth century
> Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith
> late fourth century,
> And a number of other references that are way before 7th century.
>
>2) Since Raymond Brown is specifically discussing the Latin lines (the Comma appears
> in both the Old Latin and Vulgate, with varying discussions about individual manuscripts,
> and their significance) there is one reference of special significance.
>
> Here is John Gill's quote...
> "and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the latter part of the fourth
> century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the canonical epistles, he
> complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters."
>
> Does Raymond Brown make any specific reference to this Epistle introduction ?
>
> Thanks :-)
>
>

I have a question for you. If you weren't taking a KJV only position,
would you consider, on balance of probability, that the evidence for the
comma is compelling enough to include it?

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.